NRA facing member backlash over Trump endorsement

[WhiteTara]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/nra-donald-trump-endorsement-backlash-223442

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — With its last-minute decision to formally endorse Donald Trump, the National Rifle Association put itself out in front of the fight for Republican party unity.

Just a day later, it’s already taking flak.

Chris Cox, the NRA’s top strategist, was met with raucous applause when he announced to the estimated 80,000 people gathered here for the group’s annual leadership forum on Friday that the nation’s biggest and most influential gun-rights organization was officially backing the presumptive Republican nominee. To endorse so early in the process is virtually unprecedented for the group; they didn’t get behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and Sen. John McCain in 2008 until October.
“If your preferred candidate dropped out of the race, it’s time to get over it,” Cox said.

But not everyone is there yet.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/nra-donald-trump-endorsement-backlash-223442#ixzz49KkWo6hR

[branford]

1. The NRA endorsement of Trump is secondary to their primary election strategy.

As the cited article and many others make perfectly clear, they will focus on a "anyone but Hillary" message that is consistent with overall GOP and NRA rank-and-file sentiments, and will quite likely get out the vote in swing states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

Clinton used to be demonstrably more moderate on gun control. but rapidly moved to the left of Sanders (and his PLCAA vote) as part of her election strategy in the primary. Although she will likely try very hard, I doubt she can now credibly move back to the center. Clinton's newfound love of strict gun control pushed the NRA right into the arms of Trump.

[Andy823]

2. I don't really think

The NRA nuts would vote for Hillary no matter what, do you?

[branford]

5. That's consistent with my point.

The NRA already disliked Clinton, but before the primary she was hardly the worst Democrat concerning gun control. The GOP hated Clinton, but the NRA base was not as committed, as least with respect to the gun control issue.

Without her recent lunge to the left of Sanders on the issue as a primary election tactic, the NRA would probably have waited longer to fully enter the election and might not have even endorsed Trump, instead focusing solely on issue ads and down-ticket races. As the article acknowledges, the NRA was hardly an enthusiastic supporter of McCain and Romney.

However, the NRA now believes that the stakes are sufficiently high that they decided to actually endorse Trump, a man who once supported an assault weapons ban, all before he even officially receives the Republican nomination.

Republican are facing a problem of unity in this election, and the NRA's endorsement goes a long way to solving that problem, to say nothing of their grassroots get out the vote and other elections efforts in swing states now fully committed to a Trump presidency.

[Hoyt]

3. The NRA always goes with the racist white wingers. And, they don't just push a gun agenda.

[TeddyR]

4. Max Baucus

And Harry Reid get very high marks from the NRA. Are those two candidates racist white wingers? Your unsupported hyperbole wears thin.

[Hoyt]

6. Do you see them on the Board or PAC, or developing agenda like how they tried to destroy

Obama, not so much because he was somewhat hostile toward gunz, but mainly because he doesn't match the membership that elected fuckers like this. What board members did you endorse, or did you just sit back and let the membership continue with the Nugents, and other white wing representatives.

[gratuitous]

8. "High marks" ≠ Endorsement

But I'm sure you know that, right?

[safeinOhio]

7. I'd bet a dollar

they will come out with Hillary's Secret 10 point plan to take away grandpas shotgun.

[branford]

9. Hillary has stated that Australian-style gun control for America is something worth considering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-guns_us_57323088e4b0bc9cb04851a4

This "involuntary buyback" strategy is a polite euphemism for confiscation and banning (and almost certainly would not be constitutional in our country).

In fact, the NRA has already created a video, and I imagine it will be fairly easy to create many more ads that more or less accurately convey Clinton's relatively recent strict gun control positions.

For reference, here's the NRA Propaganda Video***

It's pretty damned slick, and it's only the beginning now that they've endorsed Trump and officially entered the election. I imagine that such ads will be important in swing states like Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Pennsylvania.

I additionally find it ironic that many here strongly support bans and other forms of severe gun control, applaud Hillary as the candidate to get it done and represent their interests, and then vociferously complain when gun rights advocates like the NRA claim she intends to restrict their current gun rights. Is Hillary for strict gun control or not? You can't have it both ways.

Further, noting the lack of success of Obama's and Clinton's gun control efforts has nothing to do with their intent, and actually reinforces GOP and NRA election efforts to ensure gun rights candidates win and continue to thwart gun control efforts.


***Edit: I removed the video link to avoid controversy over the post. It's easy to find on the NRA channel on Youtube.

[safeinOhio]

10. If she is elected

I'll bet you $100 that no firearm you legally own now will be taken away from you by the US Government while she is President.
If you are buying what they say, you should jump on my bet.

[branford]

12. Ironically, I have never owned a firearm and have no current desire to do so.

I feel quite safe with my current circumstances (I'm an attorney living and working in NYC). However, I don't believe my decision is necessarily what's best for anyone else, to say nothing of using firearms for hunting and sport. I consider myself "pro-choice," and not just concerning abortion.

In any event, you comment is the reason for the last paragraph of my prior post.

The reason why we don't have strict gun control is because a largely Republican Congress (with the assistance a few Democrats who've received much criticism) and conservative Supreme Court has prevented the President and other Democratic leaders from instituting severe gun control policies they are quite vocal and proud of supporting.

If Clinton is elected, I don't believe there will be mass confiscation of firearms, but it will not be for lack of trying. If gun rights are a primary concern to a particular voter (for me, it's just one of a great many important issues), effectively suggesting or emphasizing that Republicans will prevent Clinton's gun control aspirations is hardly a persuasive argument to vote for Clinton or most Democrats. The open Supreme Court seat merely makes the issue that much more acute.

If Clinton tries to argue that she wants and strongly supports strict gun control (e.g., "Australian-style&quot , but that she has no hope of ever passing it, she'll sound weak, hypocritical, defeatist and downright idiotic. Simply, she and the DNC cannot have it both ways on gun control, particularly since Clinton's position on the issue has "evolved" so far to the left during this primary season.

[safeinOhio]

13. I'm a gun owner

And like most I would favor back ground check and even registration of hand guns. I don't think that affect any legal gun owner. I just to want to take away the fear the NRA peddles.

[branford]

15. Background checks are not really the issue.

First, they wouldn't have stopped a single mass shooting despite those shootings providing the basis for such legislation. Moreover, UBC's would likely have already passes Congress if they were constantly offered by control absolutist politicians and attached to far less popular ideas like "assault weapons" bans and magazine limits and/or the actual legislation didn't create de facto registration lists.

Gun rights supporters are not stupid, and understand the concept of political and legislative incrementalism It's just like how most Democrats strongly oppose conservatives when they attempt to chip away at abortion rights by passing "reasonable," "common sense" "safety" regulations like hospital admitting privilege rules and waiting periods. Gun rights advocates are not about to permit even seemingly minor, often little more than "feel good," gun "safety" restrictions when they know full well the ultimate goal of the vast majority of gun controllers (e.g., "Australian-style" gun confiscation and banning). No one gives an inch when their opponents are eager to take a mile.

I would also note that, at most, the NRA has about 5 million members. There are about 80-100 million legal gun owners in our country, representing about 35-50% of households. The NRA only represents 5-6% of gun owners, and their influence rests upon the majority of the other 95% comfortably allowing the NRA to speak for them and/or the NRA's excellent grassroots political efforts.

If you want to render the NRA-ILA impotent, I suggest you encourage our Democratic leadership to stop their efforts to prove them right at every opportunity. People like Clinton and President Obama absolutely cannot regularly discuss effective confiscation and banning policies like those in Australia or the UK, repealing the PLCAA, and proclaiming how our Supreme Court pick will help reverse Heller, and then claim the NRA is lying when they say we want to take away peoples' guns. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.

Either we have to truly moderate our gun control positions or have the courage of our convictions and admit that we do indeed want to massively change the legal and cultural framework of our country concerning firearms (as many on DU constantly advocate). We have not done the former because it is unpopular with certain constituencies in our Party, and we will not do the latter because it would lead to electoral suicide in vast swaths of the country.

[Straw Man]

14. Interesting.

I'm not placing any bets on what Hillary will be able to get through Congress, but the Democratic governor of my state, for whom I voted, pushed a law through the legislature that made two of my rifles illegal. Although allowed to keep them, I was legally required to register them. I cannot sell or otherwise transfer them to any resident of this state, and when I die, they will be confiscated. If they should be stolen or rendered inoperable, I will not be able to replace them.

So much depends on what you mean by "taken away."

[Angel Martin]

18. that's why the

"nobody wants to take your guns" isn't credible

Another recent action at the state level is California confiscating magazines.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-adv-california-guns-20160422-story.html

[Straw Man]

19. Yes.

Let me add what it is that makes the rifles illegal under the new law: one has a device that minimizes muzzle flash, and the other has a stock that is configured to allow me to put my thumb through it rather than over the top of it.

[el dufus]

11. Hillary should not have picked this hill to die on,,,,

Bernie has a lots more rational approach to sensible gun control. Tell these elderly ladies they do not need a means of defending themselves-- is stupid. I am elderly, wife is elderly,, we live rural--- call the Sheriff when they are 30 minutes away and someone is kicking the door down??? I trust my ''squirrel gun'' more than Hillary's silly opinion. Why does SHE have armed bodyguards surrounding her???? Is she dis-arming them??? No??? Some animals more equal than others??

[Skittles]

21. I need my x-ray glasses

NOT!!!

[Jitter65]

16. The only effective basck lsah id cancellation of membership!

[pressbox69]

17. So the NRA endorses Trump

madness breeds madness.

[Skittles]

20. nutcase vote